We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. More infoClose You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policyClose

I calculated 459 confidence intervals (CI), 3 exposures, 5 primary outcomes and at least 8 covariates in study by Lee and coworkers (1). The authors used 0.05 threshold for statistical significance which is counterintuitive. Interestingly, a highest number of reported associations in a single observational study was 264 based on a survey published in 2004 (2).

Furthermore, Lee and coworkers described possibility of confounding and instantly explained it away in the Discussion: "...However, the homogeneity of the study population and comprehensive data on the risk factors minimized potential confounding..." (1). A recent survey of observational studies showed that only few (2/120) studies warranted cautious interpretation due to confounding (3).

E-value has been proposed for sensitivity analyses due to unmeasured confounding in observational studies (4,5). The definition of E-value is: "The E-value is the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and outcome, conditional on the measured covariates, to explain away a treatment–outcome association." (4).

For example, Lee et al reported hazard ratio of 1.35 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.46) for all-cause mortality when subjects with highest fifth of predicted fat mass were compared to subjects with lowest fifth (1). E-values based on the aforementioned hazard ratio and lower limit of CI are 1.76 and 1.63, respectively, if one ignores other (potential) biases and multiplicity of analyses.